Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Vi package
David Campbell davek...@archlinux.us: Excerpts from Allan McRae's message of 2011-02-10 17:12:54 -0500: Is the current vi package actually usable for an install by someone more familiar with it? Yes, I have used it a few times, and prefer it over nano. +1 The simple things (switching input modes and saving files) works. -- Gruß, Johannes
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Vi package
I'd like to say that one of the problems before was not simply the stripped down vi, but the fact that arch was setting up the example vimrc as default, which is not the actual vim default, and was never intended to be used as a distro default. so the settings people got confused long term knowledgeable vim users too. what the default is I don't care, I've long aliased vi to vim now. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.com
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Vi package
On Thursday 10 of February 2011 17:59:26 Pierre Schmitz wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:52:16 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote: On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 17:24 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote: we did had vi being a stripped vim package in the past. We got rid of it because upstream vim started to not helping arch users because it was broken. That impression was given by our users who didn't understand that python and other crap that vim support is in vim package and not in vi. now the same situation is now. Some users don't understand that vi is nvi and what they want is in vim. I don't think we should go back to a fucked vim package with /etc/virc like we had it in the past. We switched from that to nvi, which fucked up files if they contained unicode stuff (it would just segfault in the middle of a save operation, leaving you with a broken file). After that, we decided to go for busybox, which works fairly well as vi, is maintained, but doesn't do anything that looks like vim. IMHO vi is totally useless on most systems. I prefer to uninstall it and do ln -s vim /usr/bin/vi instead. Users who complain about vi being too limited should do that too. I wonder the same. I cannot imagine why anybody would want to use vi. Personally I would not mind if nano was the only interactive editor in [core]. But keeping the current busybox vi is also fine. Hello, first, I apologize for off-topic, but i seek help on vim. Reading this thread I decided I want to learn how to get more from vim, so I started with vimtutor. So far I ran into two issues that were incompatible with the vimtutor, *) 7G moves you to line 7, I had to do 7gg instead *) Lesson 5.3: SELECTING TEXT TO WRITE ** To save part of the file, type v motion :w FILENAME ** 1. Move the cursor to this line. 2. Press v and move the cursor to the fifth item below. Notice that the text is highlighted. 3. Press the : character. At the bottom of the screen :',' will appear. 4. Type w TEST , where TEST is a filename that does not exist yet. Verify that you see :','w TEST before you press ENTER. 5. Vim will write the selected lines to the file TEST. Use :!dir or !ls to see it. Do not remove it yet! We will use it in the next lesson. ...this doesn't work for me, I switch to visual mode, after : the ',' doesn't appear though. Can somebody enlighten me, is this behavior -some config in vim -- where and how can I set it? -mistakes in the tutorial (could be updated) -mistakes in vim Many thanks, mark the vimmer :) -- Marek Otahal :o) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Vi package
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 22:56 +0100, Marek Otahal wrote: On Thursday 10 of February 2011 17:59:26 Pierre Schmitz wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:52:16 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote: On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 17:24 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote: we did had vi being a stripped vim package in the past. We got rid of it because upstream vim started to not helping arch users because it was broken. That impression was given by our users who didn't understand that python and other crap that vim support is in vim package and not in vi. now the same situation is now. Some users don't understand that vi is nvi and what they want is in vim. I don't think we should go back to a fucked vim package with /etc/virc like we had it in the past. We switched from that to nvi, which fucked up files if they contained unicode stuff (it would just segfault in the middle of a save operation, leaving you with a broken file). After that, we decided to go for busybox, which works fairly well as vi, is maintained, but doesn't do anything that looks like vim. IMHO vi is totally useless on most systems. I prefer to uninstall it and do ln -s vim /usr/bin/vi instead. Users who complain about vi being too limited should do that too. I wonder the same. I cannot imagine why anybody would want to use vi. Personally I would not mind if nano was the only interactive editor in [core]. But keeping the current busybox vi is also fine. Hello, first, I apologize for off-topic, but i seek help on vim. Reading this thread I decided I want to learn how to get more from vim, so I started with vimtutor. So far I ran into two issues that were incompatible with the vimtutor, *) 7G moves you to line 7, I had to do 7gg instead *) Lesson 5.3: SELECTING TEXT TO WRITE ** To save part of the file, type v motion :w FILENAME ** 1. Move the cursor to this line. 2. Press v and move the cursor to the fifth item below. Notice that the text is highlighted. 3. Press the : character. At the bottom of the screen :',' will appear. 4. Type w TEST , where TEST is a filename that does not exist yet. Verify that you see :','w TEST before you press ENTER. 5. Vim will write the selected lines to the file TEST. Use :!dir or !ls to see it. Do not remove it yet! We will use it in the next lesson. ...this doesn't work for me, I switch to visual mode, after : the ',' doesn't appear though. Can somebody enlighten me, is this behavior -some config in vim -- where and how can I set it? -mistakes in the tutorial (could be updated) -mistakes in vim Many thanks, mark the vimmer :) This is not the place for vim help, please consult #vim on irc and google -- Jelle van der Waa signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Vi package
Excerpts from Allan McRae's message of 2011-02-10 17:12:54 -0500: Is the current vi package actually usable for an install by someone more familiar with it? Yes, I have used it a few times, and prefer it over nano. -- David Campbell
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Vi package
On Wed 09 Feb 2011 11:23 -0500, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: Hi, I was looking at FS#20778 and was wondering what we should do with it. While it is true that the traditional vi is buggy and not user friendly. It does not seems that BusyBox is a good alternative. There are options here: 1) Statu quo Pro : * Support for multi-byte character encodings like UTF-8 * Small size Cons : * Did I said that it is buggy ? * Use of this old software in the installer may give a strange impression to new users as they are faced with an editor from the '70 on a distro where everything is up to date. * Appears to be no longer be updated upstream. Opinions? I'd say stick with the status quo. I don't find anything too wrong with the traditional vi. There's the file size and line length limit and those aren't really that bad. The wide terminal issue has been worked around by changing the config header. If you want to do heavy editing other programs are more appropriate in our modern age. Vi is more appropriate for light editing like when doing installation or configuration. Are other bugs that you mention documented somewhere? I'm interested in learning about them. If you can use vim you probably should be able to use vi without too much difficulty. I guess you could argue that having two basic editors (vi and nano) is unnecessary, vi is usually expected to be on a basic system, and nano just bugs me. :D
